User talk:Deeday-UK/Archive 1

Wow, nobody's welcomed you yet? Welcome to Wikipedia! Kla'quot 09:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Deeday-UK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Kla'quot 09:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Static Pressure

Hi! In February and March 2007 you added some text to the article "Static pressure". I think this article is significantly in error, and has been since long before you made your additions. I have made my comments in the Discussion page. I am willing to re-work the article so I would be very glad if you look at the Discussion page and add your comments. Best regards.
Dolphin51 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Giuliopp. Thanks for your patience. I have assembled my response to your comprehensive contribution on the subject of static pressure, and posted it on the Static pressure talk page. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Giuliopp. I have posted again on the Static pressure Discussion page. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Giulopp: Glad you seem to like the Gman tag I gave you. If you could bring a flow to stagnation isentropically in tube with a denser liquid (i.e. water or mercury) and the other ed of the tube normal to the streamline. You of course would have the normal u-curve in it. What would the difference in column heights represent. Wouldn't that be the something close to the dynamic pressure?Mangogirl2 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If Bernoulli is applicable, that difference in column heights indeed represents the dynamic pressure (at the point where the static port is), but the experiment proves precisely the point: the only way to determine (not measure) the dynamic pressure is by taking the difference between two measurable pressures, i.e. the fluid pressure (aka static pressure) somewhere along the streamline and the fluid pressure at a stagnation point (aka stagnation pressure). There is no way you can measure the dynamic pressure directly, taking a single pressure measurement, simply because manometers measure the force exerted by the fluid onto the area of the orifice, and the dynamic pressure is not defined as the force somewhere in the fluid divided by the area subject to it, but as the product of fluid density and square of velocity. In this sense dynamic pressure is not "real".

To say e.g. that the characteristic U-curve is due to the dynamic pressure 'entering one end and not the other' is way too simplistic to me, bordering misleading. A correct description would be for example that at the stagnation point the fluid velocity reduces to zero, therefore the kinetic energy of the fluid turns into internal energy, which implies an increase in pressure (and temperature, although noticeable only in compressible flows).
Giuliopp (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point is too subtle for me. That difference in column height seems like a measurement to me. In fact I have used this technique for flow mapping in wind tunnels and around vehicles. I do not use just to determine the total speed of the vehicle as have some of your earlier comments about pitot-static tubes have implied.Mangogirl2 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Giuliopp: Sorry I torqued you off. I had more than one family member under my user name and decided to split myself off to a new name (while working on the trajectory optimization page. I cannot see how changing names during a typo session is a problem. The comment on the static pressue page was a silly impulse on my part but since it seemed already decided I thought it would be harmless. Obviously it bothered you and I apologize for that. Skimaniac (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Giuliopp: In the reply to me above I cannot find where I said the dynamic pressure entered one end of the tube. I believe I said the ram air enters one end of the tube. Please don't say the flow does not enter the tube because it is stagnated. There are streamlines in and out of the tube.--skimaniac

That was just an example (I put e.g.) of a common way to describe the pitot tube, although if you replace "dynamic pressure enters" with "ram air enters", I don't see that much difference, after all.

I really don't get what you mean with streamlines being "in and out of the tube"; if we agree that the air inside the tube is stagnated, then stagnating air and streamline are mutually exclusive concepts. A streamline is by def. tangent in every point to the fluid velocity; if the velocity is zero everywhere, how can you define any streamlines? Do you mean that a streamline (or, better, fluid particle) gets just past the orifice, does a sort of U-turn and exits the tube from the same orifice? Well, to me that is a very localized effect and I can't see how it could alter the substance of the experiment, i.e. a Pitot tube creates a stagnation point at the orifice; a fluid particle arrives at the stagnation point, stops and then re-accelerate flowing along the external surface of the tube. To that fluid particle, whether the tube is solid or hollow and connected to a manometer, it doesn't matter at all (and the pressure at the stagnation point would be the same as well).

Giuliopp (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the report at WP:SSP, as they've updated User:Skimaniac to reflect the fact that their former account was at Mangogirl2 - I'll open dialogue with them to sort out redirecting the user page and user talk page of Mangogirl2 if they're no longer going to be using it. Thanks. _GB^T/C 13:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for help from Skimaniac

Giulio: I was hoping that you living in the EU you could help me out on something. I cannot remember the correct spelling for the French helo company Aerospatlie (doesn't look right to me either). If you could go the Grand Prairie, Texas page and fix the reference to that company. I would be most appreciative. Skimaniac (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to update Grand Prairie, since you know better about that place. Anyway, the French company was Aérospatiale, although in 1992 their helicopter division was merged into Eurocopter.

Giuliopp (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Turning flight stalls

Hi again Giuliopp! Some time ago an Editor visited Stall (flight) and added a new heading Accelerated stall. You added your excellent animated diagram Accelerated_stall.gif showing the forces on an aeroplane in turning flight. (I am most impressed by this animated diagram and I must congratulate you on it.)

On 9 August you revisited the topic, adding an explanation, and citing John Brandon’s web site The accelerated stall.

John Brandon is an acquaintance of mine and I disagree with what he has written so I contacted him and explained why I think his information is incorrect. He has replied, agreeing with my view. I understand he will rectify his web site when his time permits.

Here is my view of the matter. You may be interested in adjusting your text on Stall (flight). If not, I am willing to do so.

The stalling speed of an aeroplane or glider is measured using a slow, steady approach to the stall. The deceleration should be, nominally, one knot per second. When a test pilot investigates turning flight stalls he or she must also decelerate at about one knot per second. An accelerated stall is a manoeuvre in which the rate of deceleration towards the stall is significantly greater than one knot per second. In Flying Qualities and Flight Testing of The Aeroplane, (Blackwell Science Ltd (1996), Oxford, ISBN 0-632-02121-7), Darrol Stinton writes (page 303):
Turning Flight and Accelerated Stalls
The difference between normal turning stalls and accelerated stalls lies in the rate of approach. Turning stalls are entered using not more than 30° of bank, but whereas speed is reduced at -1.0 knot/s in a turning stall, the accelerated stall is approached with an airspeed reduction up to -5 knot/s. … … During accelerated stall tests at constant applied ‘g’, airspeed reduces rapidly. In such tests the pilot is looking primarily at the adequacy of stall warning, particularly at aft CG and heavy weight in the take-off, en-route and approach/landing configurations.

Similar information is also available in Part 23 of the USA Federal Aviation Regulations, §23.203 titled “Turning flight and accelerated turning stalls”. (Prior to 1996, §23.203 used the expression accelerated stall, rather than the modern accelerated turning stall.) §23.203 distinguishes between turning flight stalls with deceleration of -1.0 knot/s; and accelerated turning stalls with deceleration between -3 and -5 knot/s. See FAR 23.203

For transport category airplanes, §25.201 also specifies deceleration of -1.0 knot/s, and decelerations greater than -1.0 knot/s, but FAR 25 does not use the expression accelerated stall; it simply refers to all banked stalls as turning flight stalls regardless of the rate of deceleration. See: FAR 25.201

My view is that the information presently at Accelerated stall would be entirely satisfactory if all references to accelerated stalls were changed to turning flight stalls. Do you agree? Dolphin51 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that the definition of accelerated stall is more subtle than just a stall with changing velocity vector, and you've probably got a clearer picture of the matter than me, at this time; so I would leave it with you to update the article. I'm glad you like the picture; I was planning to refine it further, fixing the vectors that currently jump around across frames.

Giuliopp (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Great new GIF showing forces on an aircraft in a banked turn. The caption mentions centripetal force whereas the diagram only shows centrifugal force (apparent). I suggest the two be made consistent. Cheers! Dolphin (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm planning to add the centripetal force to the diagram. The current one is just a frame from the updated Accelerated stall GIF. Giuliopp (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Orienteering

On Orienteering, the frame around the symbol looks good. Thanks! That article has been selected for the upcoming Wikipedia CD, so we're pushing to improve it. More contributors are more than welcome. --Una Smith (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad it's been appreciated. I'll do what I can, to contribute, but right now I can only afford a little time for WP, every now and again. Giuliopp (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hale Bopp

Hi Giulio, what makes you think that a composition recorded by the English Chamber Orchestra is not notable? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gerda,

I removed what seemed like the start of one of those messy and rather pointless collections of scarcely relevant facts from an otherwise quite neat section (and article). The English Chamber Orchestra scores the same order of magnitude of hits as the Finnish JPP group, far fewer than say the Berlin Philarmonic or the London Philarmonic, which perhaps might have been notable, in case.

You are welcome to raise the question on the talk page anyway (possibly proposing the creation of an 'In popular culture' section); maybe I'm in a minority. --Giuliopp (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. It's "Philharmonic" in Berlin, btw. And it's culture, not popular culture. I'll write more on the piece, but not in the comet's article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you Giuliopp for your constructive criticism, comments, and help. I am new to Wiki and am learning the procedures. Please read my user page to learn who I am.Atomicjohn (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, Atomicjohn. Your CV is really impressive and I'm sure you'll be able to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers! --Giuliopp (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Hi Giuliopp, thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia. I see you have been removing hatnotes from many articles. Readers arrive at articles via many different routes and often find themselves on the wrong page for many reasons. Hatnotes are very helpful for redirects to support readers moving on to find the right page. Please don't delete them. Thank you. Span (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Span, it's not that I delete hatnotes on a whim; the ones I deleted did not comply with the MoS, namely WP:NAMB. I cannot see how somebody looking for Kelly Johnson the aeronautical engineer could end up on Kelly Johnson (figure skater) or vice-versa, other than via a bad link, in which case it's the link that needs to be fixed, not all the Kelly Johnson articles that need to be cluttered up with unnecessary hatnotes.

If, for some obscure reason, somebody looking for Bangor, Maine ends up on Bangor, Gwynedd, all they have to do is to put 'Bangor' in the search engine and they will be taken straight to the Bangor dab page (no confusion either if they google 'Bangor' in the first place). Note that, for example, I did not delete the hatnote at Bangor Township, Bay County, Michigan, since there is still some margin for confusion.

Unless you can provide some good reasons not to follow the guidelines, I'm going to revert your last changes.

-- Giuliopp (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, but it is standard to have a helpful disambig hatnote to signpost to other similarly titled articles as in the FA William Shakespeare which signs to 24 people named Shakespeare including the reggae artist Robbie Shakespeare and Joseph Shakespeare, the mayor of New Orleans as well as five places including a crater on Mercury; or FAs Ernest Hemingway, Belgrade, Canberra and Oxygen. Much of the time readers do not necessarily know the name of the page they are looking for; they have some key descriptors, maybe just a surname, a town name or one word in an album title. If I'm not sure if the Bangor I'm looking for is in California, Iowa or Maine but I do know it's the one founded by Quakers in 1854, it's tremendously helpful to be able to go back to the given disambig page without having to re-enter the search term. Chris Anderson (entrepreneur) and Chris Anderson (writer) are often mistaken for each other. Both are entrepreneurs, both writers, both work with in the tech industries and advise on dot com company development and both live in California. I assure you, they do need disambiguating. This is covered by WP:SIMILAR. Thank you. Span (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Of course William Shakespeare has a hatnote, because it is ambiguous! (and Ernest Hemingway, Belgrade etc.) It's not clear from the title which William Shakespeare the article is about, so there is a real chance that readers looking for the American football player end up on the article about the "Bard of Avon" instead, hence a note pointing them to other possible William Shakespeares. A hatnote like the one on William Shakespeare (American football), instead is completely pointless, as that title cannot be about an English playwright.
• You are not sure which Bangor article is about the town founded by the Quakers in 1854? Put "Bangor Quakers 1854" in the search engine and presto! the first result is the correct one. If, from a dab page, you end up on the wrong disambiguated article (which is already unlikely by itself), just hit the Back button of your browser: no clicking about, no hatnotes necessary.
• Fair point about Chris Anderson. I didn't realise the entrepreneur and the writer were so similar, which means that the two articles need to be disambiguated better: instead of a generic hatnote linking to the Chris Anderson dab page, there should be two specific links between the two Chris Andersons that are at risk of confusion. The Chris Anderson trumpet player or the footballer are clearly somebody else. If a hatnote on Chris Anderson (athlete) pointing to the dab page Chris Anderson was appropriate, why not make it point to Christopher Anderson (disambiguation) too, and even to Christopher Andersen (disambiguation). Where would you stop?

I was like you up until not so long ago and thought that the more hatnotes the better. Then I figured out what disambiguation is really about and realised that a large number of current hatnotes are just unnecessary clutter. As it's often the case on WP, here too less is more. -- Giuliopp (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart

There is an extensive archive on the many struggles of incorporating or sub-dividing associate articles on the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. One of the main reasons not to divide the main article is that the disappearance theories are now inextricably linked to the Earhart mystique and serves to keep her in the public psyche. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, I'm fine with keeping all in one article anyway. With my last edit I meant that as long as there is no separate article, then there is no point in wiki-linking the words "disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean" (my expectation as a reader is that when I click on such a link, I am taken to another article, not to a section of the article I'm already reading).

While I'm on the subject, I think it would make sense to at least use the word "disappearance" in the relevant section heading (e.g. "Final approach to Howland Island and disappearance"), to make it clear to the reader where the crucial moment of her story is covered. --Giuliopp (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense, to anchor the list of disappearances only to the word "disappearance". --Giuliopp (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Clear Air Turbulence

When you made this title redirect to the primary topic, were you planning to change all the links to the article about the album? Right now they point to the primary topic, where the reader is then directed to the most pointless dab page I've ever seen. Hardly an improvement, is it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't planning to change all the other links, because it didn't occur to me that other articles were pointing to Clear Air Turbulence. Now that you pointed it out, I plan to update those links too, but I'll need a couple of days. the related dab page is far from pointless, in my view; with only three entries it could be argued that a hatnote on the primary topic article could be enough, but to me it would look too cumbersome. --Giuliopp (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. The dab page should only have two entries (thus should not exist) – the fictional spaceship is a nonentity and shouldn't really be there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed views with regard to orphan entries on dab pages: if the definition of disambiguation page were to be taken literally, then Clear air turbulence (disambiguation) would only have two entries. However, there will likely be readers ending up on the dab page while looking for information on the fictional spaceship, therefore an additional entry directing them to the most relevant article on the subject does not sound inappropriate. In doubt, I tend to leave it. --Giuliopp (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Ciao, ho visto le foto che hai inserito della tomba di Ouspensky e mi chiedevo che tipo di interesse avevi per, quello che io reputo, uno dei più grandi personaggi dei nostri tempi. Roberto Xroberto77 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ciao Roberto, grazie del caffè ma temo di doverti deludere: non nutro nessun interesse particolare per Ouspensky (che fino a poco fa non avevo mai sentito nominare). Sto semplicemente cercando di corredare quante più voci biografiche possibili con una foto del luogo di sepoltura, perlomeno di quei luoghi che mi capitano a tiro. Cordialità. --Giuliopp (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Alula

I note you undid my edit to the "about"-template of Alula, arguing it is simpler. My point would be that it may be simpler but it is deceptive as well. The alula is not a feather. I'm not entering into an editing war as I regard this as a waste of time and energy, but I would appeal to your responsibility as a user to provide acurate information. Kind reards, --Dwergenpaartje (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hatnotes should be as kept simple as possible, as they are typically intended for those readers who are looking for a subject completely unrelated to the article's one, and are therefore not interested in exact definitions or fine details. However, the existing hatnote was indeed a bit oversimplified. --Giuliopp (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)